Question #1: R. Yochanan taught (Zevachim 107b) that one who is Ma'aleh (Maktir) b'Chutz nowadays is liable. Why is he liable? The Korban is not proper for Pesach Ohel Mo'ed, for the Mizbe'ach was destroyed!

Even if the Mizbe'ach was dented, we say (Zevachim 59a, 62a) that all Korbanos slaughtered there (i.e. at the time) are Pesulim. This is like Mechusar Zeman;

Even if we are lacking only opening the doors [of the Heichal], one is exempt [for Shechutei Chutz]. All the more so [one is exempt] if we are lacking a great action like this (rebuilding the Mizbe'ach)!

We learned in a Mishnah (Zevachim 112b) that there is not even a Lav for [slaughtering] Oso v'Es Beno or Mechusar Zeman b'Chutz, according to Rabanan who argue with R. Shimon;

Question #2: Further, we say (Avodah Zarah 13a) that if one was Makdish, Ma'arich (pledged to give an amount to Hekdesh based on a person's age and gender) or made Cherem (Hekdesh) nowadays, if he was Makdish an animal, Te'aker (we lock it up so it will starve to death);

The Gemara asked that we should slaughter it. Rashi explained that there is no problem of Shechutei Chutz, for we discuss Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis.

Objection (Ri): If so, when the Gemara suggested that we should cut it into two halves, why did we answer that this is blemishing Kodshim?

Answer #1 (to Question #2 - Ri): Rather, we discuss Kodshei Mizbe'ach. One is not liable for Shechutei Chutz, because it is Mechusar Zeman.

[Poor] Answer #2: The Sugya in Avodah Zarah is like the opinion that Bamos were permitted.

Objection #1: Why should we establish [the Beraisa there] like the opinion that Bamos were permitted, in order to ask "why don't we slaughter it?", for according to the opinion that Bamos were not permitted, it is not difficult?

Objection #2: A Stam Mishnah (Zevachim 112a) says that there was no Heter [for Bamos] after [the Mikdash was built in] Yerushalayim;

The Gemara challenged the opinion (Megilah 10a) that we may offer in Beis Chonyo from this Mishnah!

Answer #1 (to Question #1): R. Yochanan is Mechayev for Ha'alah b'Chutz [nowadays]. He discusses offering Ketores, which does not require a Mizbe'ach;

We say in Zevachim 59a that if the Mizbe'ach was uprooted, one may burn the Ketores in its (the inner Mizbe'ach's) place.

Answer #2 (to Question #1): R. Yochanan is Mechayev for Ha'alah of a Minchah [b'Chutz nowadays];

Only regarding Zevachim (animal offerings) we say that if the Mizbe'ach was dented, they are Pesulim. We learn from "v'Zavachta Alav" - when it is complete, but not when it is lacking.

Support: This explains why R. Yochanan mentioned "Ha'alah", and not Shechitah or Zerikah.

Answer #3 (to Question #1): R. Yochanan discusses if the Mizbe'ach would be built in its place, and one offered outside. He holds that Kedushah [of the Mikdash] was permanent.

Suggestion: We could answer that R. Yochanan holds like R. Yehudah, who permits (Zevachim 59a) Haktarah on the floor [of the Azarah. Therefore, Korbanos could be offered nowadays, even without a Mizbe'ach.]

Rejection: Granted, he permits Haktarah on the floor. However, he requires that the Mizbe'ach is in its place;

However, if the Mizbe'ach was dented, he would not permit Haktarah anywhere.

Question: According to what Rashi explained in Zevachim 61a, why is he exempt for Shelamim slaughtered outside before opening the doors of the Heichal?

Regarding "before the Leviyim erected the Mishkan [in a new encampment in the Midbar]" and "after they dissembled it", Rashi explained that only Shelamim slaughtered inside [the Mikdash] before the doors of the Heichal were opened is Pasul, but not other Kodshim;

If so, since "Pesulo b'Kodesh', i.e. there is a Heter regarding other Kodshim, Im Alah Lo Yered (if it was brought on the Mizbe'ach, we do not take it down. It is offered);

This is like we say about Pesach and Chatas slaughtered Lo Lishmah b'Chutz. One is liable for them, like it says in Zevachim (115a), because it is accepted inside, i.e. there is a Heter for other Zevachim (they are Kosher Lo Lishmah).

Answer: We can say that there, the animal is proper to be slaughtered inside at that time, Lishmah. (Therefore, one is liable for it outside);

However, here (a Shelamim slaughtered outside), it was not proper to be offered inside [at the time, i.e.] before the doors were opened.

Question (R. Tam): We should infer oppositely from the Reisha! He is exempt because it was Lishmo. Stam, he would be liable!

[Poor] Answer: "Lishmo" of the Reisha is Stam, for we say in Zevachim (2b) that Stam Zevachim are destined to be Lishmah.

Rejection: That refers only to in their time. Pesach the rest of the year (i.e. after Erev Pesach), Stam it is not Lishmah. (It is destined to become a Shelamim.)

Alternative text: It seems that the text should be like those Seforim that do not have "Taima deshe'Lo Lishmo";

Explanation: We can say that we infer from the Reisha. [The Gemara asks] why is one exempt Lishmo?

We are thinking that it does not require Akirah. If so, why is he exempt? If he wants, he can slaughter it Stam inside, for Stam is destined to be Lo Lishmo!

The Gemara answers that it requires Akirah.

Support: We find like this in Pesachim 64a. During the Mo'ed he is exempt Lishmo, and liable Lo Lishmo;

Rashi's text there is like here. "The reason is because it is Lo Lishmo. Stam, he would be exempt."

Also there it is difficult like I asked here. Rather, we can [change the text and] explain there like I explained here.

Implied question: Even without this, we could have said that Rav Dimi argues with Rav Chilkiyah!

Answer: We say so now, for now Rav Dimi and Ravin argue with Rav Chilkiyah.

Note: "Now" is after R. Yirmeyah mi'Difti said that Ravin holds like Rav Dimi (R. Y. Glick Shlita. We could have said above that Rav Dimi argues with Rav Chilkiyah, and obviously anyone who holds like Rav Dimi argues with Rav Chilkiyah! Perhaps we say so now to show that in this version, Rav Chilkiyah is the minority opinion. In the other version (Rav Ashi), Ravin holds that Pesach does not need Akirah, so we cannot infer what he holds about Akirah b'Chutz.

Note: Har ha'Moriyah on Rambam Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 18:12 suggested that Pesach the rest of the year is a Shelamim, and Lishmo (l'Shem Pesach) is an Akirah. Ravin is Mechayev, for Akirah outside does not help, unlike Rav Chilkiyah. However, we never find Akirah to exempt! He suggests changing the text of Tosfos to say "now, Rav Dimi argues with Ravin and Rav Chilkiyah." I do not understand this, for it was blatantly obvious from the beginning that Rav Dimi argues with Ravin!

Explanation #1 (brought in Rashi): Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis are considered improper for Pesach Ohel Mo'ed, for Stam they are Ba'alei Mumim, since one who is Makdish a Tam (unblemished) animal to Bedek ha'Bayis transgresses an Aseh.

Objection (Rashi): One cannot establish this Perush in its place in Zevachim.

Rashi did not explain the difficulty.

Explanation (of the difficulty - Zevachim 112a - Mishnah): If one slaughtered Parah Adumah outside of its pit, or slaughtered Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach outside, he is exempt, for they are not proper to come to the Ohel Mo'ed.

Inference: Even though Parah Adumah is Tam (a blemish disqualifies it), since it is not destined to come to Pesach Ohel Mo'ed, he is exempt. (This shows that we cannot attribute the exemption to a Mum!)

Explanation #2 (Tosfos): Also here, one is exempt for Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis [for this reason], even if they are Tam.

Rashi's opinion: Rashi says that the text should not say "Paras Chatas", for it does not come to Pesach Ohel Mo'ed at all. He is correct.

Suggestion: "V'Hizah El Nochach Pnei Ohel Mo'ed mi'Damah" [shows that it is called proper for Pesach Ohel Mo'ed]!

Rejection: In Zevachim (113b), the Gemara challenged the Mishnah, which is says that Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach is not proper for Pesach Ohel Mo'ed, from our Beraisa, which calls it proper for Pesach Ohel Mo'ed;

It answers that it was proper before the lottery, but it is improper after the lottery. Alternatively, it was proper before Viduy [but it is improper after Viduy].

Why didn't it ask from Parah Adumah? It could not have given this answer! (It has no lottery or Viduy.)

Conclusion: The Beraisa does not mention Parah Adumah.

Question: The Beraisa says "they are proper... except for these, which are not proper" in the plural! (We cannot say that it mentions only Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach!)

Answer: The text must say "it is proper", in the singular, since it mentions only Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach.

Defense (of the text that mentions Parah Adumah): It means as follows. 'I would not exclude Parah Adumah. And even if you will say that I exclude Parah Adumah, since it does not come to Pesach Ohel Mo'ed, I would not exclude Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach. "La'Shem" teaches that this is not so.'

Answer (to Rejection (c)): In Zevachim, we asked from Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach, but not from Parah Adumah, because the Beraisa itself said "even if you will say that Parah Adumah is not [called] proper for Pesach Ohel Mo'ed, la'Shem comes for Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach [to exclude it], for it surely is proper for Pesach Ohel Mo'ed."

Therefore, we asked there only from Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach.

Question #1 (R. Yehudah ha'Kohen): In Zevachim (107b), we say that there was no need [for the Torah] to write [the Isur of] Zerikah b'Chutz, for we could learn from [the Tzad ha'Shavah of] Shechitah and offering b'Chutz;

Rather, it was written to teach about Kabalah, [to teach that] we do not learn from them [through Tzad ha'Shavah].

Question #2 (R. Yehudah ha'Kohen): Why do we need to a verse [to forbid Zerikah of animals that are] Ba'alei Mumim? We can learn from them (Shechitah and Haktarah)!

Suggestion: It was written to teach about Kabalah, so we will not learn from them (the other Avodos that the Torah forbids with a blemished Korban).

Rejection: We could not learn it from the others! We cannot learn from Shechitah and Ha'alah, for one is Chayav for them outside the Mikdash, but not for Kabalah.

Question (Tosfos, the Talmid of R. Yehudah ha'Kohen): Hekdesh of a Ba'al Mum Yochi'ach (proves that it does not depend on this)! Even though one is exempt [for Hekdesh of an animal to offer it b'Chutz], one is liable for Hekdesh of a Ba'al Mum! (Likewise, we can say that one is exempt for Kabalah b'Chutz, but one is liable for Kabalah of a Ba'al Mum.)

Question #3 (R. Yehudah ha'Kohen): According to R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah, who obligates even for Kabalah of a Ba'al Mum, why do we need verses [obligating] for Haktarah, Zerikah and Kabalah of a Ba'al Mum?

We could learn all of these from a Tzad ha'Shavah of Shechitah and Hekdesh [of a Ba'al Mum]!

Answer (Tosfos): We need [verses for Haktarah, Zerikah and Kabalah] to reveal about Kemitzah [lest we learn to be Mechayev for it from a Tzad ha'Shavah! One verse sufficed to teach that we do not learn a Tzad ha'Shavah, but this necessitated teaching the other two explicitly, for there is no way to derive them.]

Implied question: In Menachos 85b, the Gemara asked whether or not one is lashed for a Ba'al Mum regarding wormy flour! (I.e. perhaps one is liable for Kemitzah of a Ba'al Mum.)

Answer #1: We asked whether or not one is liable for being Makdish it, but not for Kemitzah.

Answer #2: The question was according to Rabanan who argue with R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah.

Answer #3: If there was no [explicit] verse for Zerikah, we would have established one verse "Lo Sakrivu" to forbid Zerikah, and the other for Kabalah;

We establish the verse for Shechitah and Makdish only through Im Eino Inyan (since we do not need it to teach about the simple meaning, we use it to teach about something else)

"Hakravah" connotes Zerikah and Kabalah more [than Shechitah and Makdish], for the word means Zerikah and Kabalah, like we find in Zevachim (13a);

Citation (13a): "V'Hikrivu" refers to Kabalas ha'Dam. Or, perhaps it refers to Zerikah!

Conclusion: Therefore, we would not learn Makdish and Shochet [from v'Hikrivu];

Also, we would not learn them from a Tzad ha'Shavah, for the others are Avodah, and do not apply to Chulin. We cannot learn to Shechitah, which applies to Chulin!

Question #4 (R. Yehudah ha'Kohen): Regarding the Isur of [Hakravas Korban Pesach, or other Korbanos during Pesach] Al [while owning] Chametz (Pesachim 63b), why do we need a verse for Zerikah? We could learn from a Tzad ha'Shavah [of Shechitah and Haktarah]!

Suggestion: It was written to teach about Kabalah (so we will not learn it from the Tzad ha'Shavah).

Rejection: Even without this, we could not learn Kabalah from a Tzad ha'Shavah of Shechitah and Haktarah, like I explained, for one is liable outside for them.

Question (Tosfos): Melikah Yochi'ach. One is exempt for it outside, but one is liable for it Al Chametz, like it says there in Pesachim!

Question #5 (R. Yehudah ha'Kohen): Why do we need a verse for Zerikah to idolatry? We could learn from a Tzad ha'Shavah!

We do not need it to teach about Kabalah, for in any case we could refute [the Tzad ha'Shavah] like I explained [for one is exempt outside for Kabalah].

Answer #1 (Tosfos): There is no extra verse [in the Chumash] for Zerikah. It is learned from a verse in Tehilim (16:4), "Bal Asich Niskeihem mi'Dam."

Answer #2 (Tosfos): Even according to my Rebbi's premise, we need it to teach about Kabalah, lest we learn it from a Tzad ha'Shavah;

If you will refute it like we asked [above, that one is exempt outside for Kabalah], we can say that bowing Yochi'ach. One is exempt for bowing outside, but one is liable for bowing to idolatry!

Retraction (from Answer #2): Really, we do not need a verse to reveal about Kabalah. Since we do not find a verse that people serve idolatry through Kabalah, we are not Mechayev for it;

Rashi said so in Sanhedrin 60b. The Gemara asked that the Mishnah should list also Zerikah [among Chiyuvim for idolatry]. Rashi explained that Kabalah and Holachah were not difficult;

Since we do not find a verse that people serve idolatry through these, even though they resemble Avodas Panim (in the Mikdash), one is exempt for it Lo k'Darkah (not the normal way this particular idolatry is served).

Conclusion: My first answer was correct.

Question #6 (R. Yehudah ha'Kohen): How can the Gemara say there that we would have learned Kabalah from [a Tzad ha'Shavah] of Shechitah and Ha'alah, had it not written Zerikah to reveal that we not learn from them?

We can refute this. One is liable for the others for a Ba'al Mum, but one is exempt for Kabalah, according to Rabanan of R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah.

Answer #1 (Tosfos): Menasech (pouring libations to idolatry) Yochi'ach.